RSS Feed MenuVancouver City Council last week voted unanimously to require developers to build outlets for electric cars into a percentage of new apartments and condominiums. What’s not to like? This: Electric cars emit more carbon dioxide and cause more pollution than conventional cars – and much more than hybrid cars like Toyota’s Prius.
A plug-in electric car may not emit any carbon dioxide from the tailpipe. But the electricity has to come from somewhere, and typically grid electricity is generated by burning coal. Because gasoline is a much more energy-rich fuel than coal, a low-mileage gasoline car is much better for the environment. You can see the stark contrast in Toyota’s two versions of the Prius, the older hybrid model and the newer plug-in. The hybrid goes 40 miles or better on a gallon of gasoline. Burning a gallon of gasoline yields 20 pounds of carbon dioxide – or about two miles per pound of carbon dioxide emission. By contrast, according to Toyota’s own numbers, the plug-in version of the Prius gets only one mile per pound. (Specifically: the plug-in Prius goes 2.5 miles on a kilowatt-hour of electricity. Burning coal to generate a kilowatt-hour emits 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide.) Which means that when I plug it in, my 40-50 mpg Prius becomes half as efficient and turns into a 20 mpg SUV. (The story with GM’s upcoming Volt plug-in car is no different.)
Some will argue that electricity does not have to come from coal. True. But today’s highest environmental priority should be to get rid of coal electricity. Every new electric car is going to make this challenging goal that much more difficult to achieve. Is the conclusion any different if I have a personal windmill or a solar array on my roof? Not really, because then I should be using my clean electricity to displace coal, not to reduce my guilt when I charge an electric car.
The reality is that coal is the cheapest fuel in the face of a tightening electricity supply. It is sobering to know that despite all the hoopla about clean energy, the increase in US coal electricity in 2007 was more than 200 times the increase in solar photovoltaic! It is going to be difficult to get rid of this dirty fuel that supplies half of our electricity. We need electricity for high efficiency uses such as in mass transit where rapid acceleration is essential. On the other hand, as Toyota itself has shown, cars can run very efficiently on gasoline and should stay on it.
Perhaps the strongest argument against electric cars is an economic one. By using coal as an energy source, electric cars will decrease price pressure on gasoline, leading in turn to less conservation and increased consumption. In simple words, electric cars will free up gasoline for Hummers (even if those guzzlers are in China). On top of emissions from burning every drop of gasoline that we can dig up, there will be emissions from coal used in the transportation sector. Electric cars thus insidiously fulfill a fervent goal of the coal lobby: converting coal into liquid fuel (synfuel). Environmentalists justifiably oppose these dirty synfuels, yet most do not seem to realize that the electric car gives coal a backdoor entry into transportation. It should be telling that some of the powerful political backers of the electric car are actively hostile to any efforts to reduce global warming. Although they make appropriate noises about clean alternatives, their rationale is that domestic coal is better than imported petroleum and increases in greenhouse emissions are irrelevant.
As much as we may hate petroleum, putting coal in the gas tank is a step in the wrong direction. Efficient electric cars may make sense after we manage to clean up the electric grid, but we must not put this electric cart before the horse.
ottovbvs // Jul 13, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Honestly….. conservatives don’t do themselves any favors with this sort of nonsense which belongs in the trees, cows, burping babies create carbon dioxide. And what if the energy comes from oil , nuclear, hydro electric powered stations or wind farms, or wave power. This is a multifaceted problem, electric cars are but one part of a complex mix of remedies. According to this theory we must stop all development of oncological drugs until we’ve found a cure for cancer.
balconesfault // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“typically grid electricity is generated by burning coal”
Ahh – there’s the rub. We know that we have to burn less coal, which is why we’re increasing energy production from renewables, increasing the amount of gas fired power, and over the long run, likely increasing the amount of nuclear.
The transition to electric vehicles will allow greater efficiency in the long haul. Once very nice symbiosis occurs because wind generates most energy at night, and as we move to fleet with a larger percentage of electric cars (we’re never going to be 100% electric, or even approach it) cars charging their batteries overnight will provide a great storage mechanism for that night generation. Electric cars will also tie in well with demand pricing, which will become part of our energy future, as drivers will recharge more at off-peak times.
But all of these things will take time. We’re not going to have an electric car fleet approaching even 20% for probably 8-10 years.
As for the drop of oil prices that you note may result from more electric vehicles – have you thought about the balance of trade ramifications of that? If we’re concerned about people driving less efficient vehicles, there are other ways to do it. I’d start with a significant bump in the gasoline tax to take advantage of the relatively cheap oil we’ve been enjoying.
barker13 // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Funny you bring up this subject at this time, Professor.
Why just yesterday I was having a discussion with a few folks concerning the following article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece?print=yes&randnum=1242604714984
Any thoughts?
BILL
barker13 // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:04 pm –
“We know that we have to burn less coal…”
Actually… “we” know no such thing. I’m all in favor of constantly upgrading our technology to make our energy creation as clear a process as possible, but putting the horse back in front of the cart… my focus is on generating energy. Coal generates energy. We’ve got lots of coal. Therefore…
(*SHRUG*)
“…renewables, increasing the amount of gas fired power, and over the long run, likely increasing the amount of nuclear.”
Hey… I’m with you! Especially with regard to nuclear! But keeping our eyes on the ball… by whatever means we generate “power,” those means have to be plentiful and economical. Ultimately it is wealth itself which will combat “pollution.”
“The transition to electric vehicles…”
Ya know much about hydrogen, Balc? I don’t, but as referenced in my previous post, this guy Clarkson seems to think this is the direction we should be moving in. Any thoughts? (You too, Professor!)
“I’d start with a significant bump in the gasoline tax…”
Yeah. (*SNORT*) I know you would.
(Please, please, please, Balc… join the Democratic Party… get active with the Democratic Party… pursue your “liberal” policies there while at the same time with regard to policies you’re on the “right” side on, you can pull the Dems Rightward from within!)
Me? I’ve long been in favor of moving away from gasoline and towards diesel – clean burning diesel I believe they call it nowadays. (*WINK*)
BILL
balconesfault // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Bill: “Ya know much about hydrogen, Balc? I don’t, but as referenced in my previous post, this guy Clarkson seems to think this is the direction we should be moving in. Any thoughts? (You too, Professor!)”
Hydrogen is a storage technology, and not a fuel unto itself. To wit – it’s not like there are large stores of hydrogen underground that we can drill for to fill our fuel cells … rather, hydrogen needs to be separated from the atmosphere or water painstakingly through the consumption of energy. And that energy still needs to be generated, via fossil fuels, via wind/solar/hydro/tidal, or via nuclear.
As for the gasoline tax, I did work for John Anderson back in 1980. Had his gas tax proposals been incorporated back then, we’d be light years ahead as an economy today.
ottovbvs // Jul 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm
balconesfault // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:04 pm
” I’d start with a significant bump in the gasoline tax to take advantage of the relatively cheap oil we’ve been enjoying.”
……….I’m not totally out of sympathy with this conceptually but there is one major downside in that American society is much more dependant on the car than any other western country because we don’t have an integrated public transport system……In Italy or Britain for example you can travel to the most remote places by trains and buses. Thus big hikes in gas prices either as a consequence of oil increases or govt policy are going to have a disproportionate effect on both national mobility and the national pocket book. Right now the last thing we want is big hikes in gas prices which are going to further stunt discretionary spending by consumers. I well realize it’s a chick and egg situation but increasing energy prices as a national policy to discourage use is something that needs to be done with some skill.
barker13 // Jul 13, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:53 pm –
“Hydrogen is a storage technology, and not a fuel unto itself.”
Well… yes. In the sense of “now.” But how’bout future technological advances?
(Hey… I’m sincerely asking for feedback – I’m just relying upon what I’m reading.)
Clarkson wrote…
“…what Honda has done with its other eco-car, the Clarity. Instead of using a petrol engine to charge up the electric motor’s batteries, as happens on the Insight, the Clarity uses hydrogen: the most abundant gas in the universe. The only waste product is water. The car feels like a car. And, best of all, the power it produces is so enormous, it can be used by day to get you to 120mph and by night to run all the electrical appliances in your house. This is not science fiction. There is a fleet of Claritys running around California right now. There are problems to be overcome. Making hydrogen is a fuel-hungry process, and there is no infrastructure. But Alexander Fleming didn’t look at his mould and think, “Oh dear, no one will put that in their mouth”, and give up. I would have hoped, therefore, that Honda had diverted every penny it had into making hydrogen work rather than stopping off on the way to make a half-arsed halfway house for fools and madmen.”
See where I’m coming from?
BILL
ottovbvs // Jul 13, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“I would have hoped, therefore, that Honda had diverted every penny it had into making hydrogen work rather than stopping off on the way to make a half-arsed halfway house for fools and madmen.”
……..Honda of course is one of the world’s least succesful car companies and has no idea what they are doing
““Hydrogen is a storage technology, and not a fuel unto itself.”
“Well… yes. In the sense of “now.” But how’bout future technological advances?’
…….Painful isn’t it?
midcon // Jul 13, 2009 at 5:17 pm
An electric vehicle would at least be using our own national resources and would, in some small measure, reduce th $700B we send to the Middle East every year for oil. I would leave no stone unturned to pursue energy independence, especially nuclear.
balconesfault // Jul 13, 2009 at 7:30 pm
>>>>“Well… yes. In the sense of “now.” But how’bout future technological advances?’
…….Painful isn’t it?<<<<
Well, you just gotta remember that this is the person who wishes for a military coup to take over America, and all falls into perspective.
ktward // Jul 13, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Don’t mind me, just passing through testing user migration …
sinz54 // Jul 13, 2009 at 11:41 pm
ottovbvs sez: “American society is much more dependant on the car than any other western country because we don’t have an integrated public transport system”
No. It’s because of suburban sprawl, which makes a cost-effective public transport system impossible here.
European countries don’t have the sprawling suburbs that we do. America is much more suburban than any European nation. And businesses and even industrial parks have followed the American middle-class into the suburbs. The old model of a suburb as just a place to live while you commute to the city to work or shop is dead.
I live in the Boston suburbs, I’ve worked in industrial parks located in the suburbs, I shop in shopping malls located in the the suburbs. I rarely ever travel into Boston anymore. And all of that vast space surrounding Boston is only accessible efficiently through cars or taxis.
Where I live, we have a few bus lines. Even during rush hours, the buses are nearly empty–because they simply can’t go where people need to go. Nor are they accommodating of groceries.
sinz54 // Jul 13, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Electric cars have so many other problems associated with them that they’re not worth bothering with for many years to come.
Millions of Americans still park their cars in outdoor parking lots or on the streets of major American cities. They would have no way to recharge the batteries in their cars. Until you put battery chargers on every street and parking lot in America. Good luck with that.
Americans love the idea of getting into their car and traveling hundreds of miles to reach a camp site or other vacation spot. With a gasoline-powered car, they can refuel in minutes along the way. With an electric-powered car, they would have to stay overnight somewhere along the way while the batteries charged. So electric cars might work as commuters’ cars, but anyone planning a vacation couldn’t depend on them.
barker13 // Jul 14, 2009 at 12:05 am
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 13, 2009 at 11:46 pm –
Good points, Sinz.
Did you read the piece I posted the link to on Jul 13, 2009 at 3:35 pm?
Here’re the thoughts of a friend of mine who owns a Prius and knows a bit about electricity and power generation (being one of the country’s and thus the world’s foremost lighting designers) (*WINK*) which he responded to me with after having read the Clarkson review:
========== Quoting ==========
Well, he is standing on the critical distinctions in terms of where things are now in the hybrid market: the Toyota’s are working, and no one else’s are. That is not to say that there is where the argument should end.
All of his issues with the Hybrid are functions of the Honda hybrid; why Honda cannot do better, I do not know. Is it that Toyota “owns” all of the patents and intellectual property that make their cars work? I do not know. I know that the Prius has a lot of power because their electronic engine is very high tork (unlike the competitors) and the transmission between electric and gas is seamless. Further, the electric is almost always laid on top of the gas, boosting the MPG instead of carrying it the way he describes the Honda hybrid working.
Is Hydrogen the answer of the future? Perhaps. Perhaps this is where the American manufacturers would be heading if they were actually trying to become leaders in this market. It would be nice to see them headed in some progressive direction, instead of just lagging behind others….
Or, is the real solution in the hybrid with a increased efficiency to the battery. Recall, if you will, where the batteries were on computers 5 years ago. Selling a technology inevitably results in improvements to that technology.
In the Hybrid question, the battery is king. There are the problems with the neodymium battery models used in hybrids now. There is the induction motors like the Chorus Meshcon. Then the Lithium Ion batteries which have the problem of actually getting the lithium chloride or the lithium carbonate which will run in short supply if the hybrids truly caught on globally.
There are currently non-viable candidates like the zinc-air and vanadium-boron air batteries which are cheap, light, and energy dense. And zinc is everywhere. But they fail after repeated discharge cycles. So, they are not viable now, but Toyota is already working on a Zn-air battery and is targeting availability in 2020; if they succeed, US autos will again be a generation behind.
So, are the purchasers of Hybrids today investing in the future technology? I would say yes. I also think that in general, that they are perfectly aware of this. At least I am. The investment has to come, from consumers and from governments who understand that finding alternates will not come overnight and will require investments. Which is why the government offering incentives to help to underwrite the people who are helping to underwrite the development if these technologies is a good thing. And in this way, the system does not need to reward poor producers such as demonstrated by the new Honda. The author recognizes the need to achieve more energy efficiencies if not for the purpose of global warming but from the point of view of economic and national security interests. That is fine; everyone can pick their motive. No matter how you slice it, improved performance and increased energy independence just makes sense.
I for one am glad to be a part of the change in the dynamic; he can call me smug all day, won’t bother me a bit…..
==========
Anyway… (*SHRUG*)… passing over Balc’s inability to resist the cheap shot and Otto’s typically moronic statements, this is the sort of discussion that actually leads to people learning things.
(Well… not Otto.) (*HUGE FRIGG’N SMIRK*)
BILL
balconesfault // Jul 14, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Bill – I agree with your friend. It’s always welcome to read an informed opinion.
And he’s absolutely right – ” the government offering incentives to help to underwrite the people who are helping to underwrite the development if these technologies is a good thing.”
I’ve owned one of the original Priuses from the moment it was available in the US marketplace – delivered in Dec 2000. It has had some implementational bugs, as to be expected from any new technology, but Toyota stood by it, and we’re still driving it 140,000 miles later, and it’s still getting 45+ mpg. We even bought it pre-tax incentive.
Sinz: “It’s because of suburban sprawl, which makes a cost-effective public transport system impossible here.”
Suburban sprawl of that form is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If America was as aggressive about building rail transportation lines as we are about building highways, we’d have seen a lot of that “sprawl” concentrated in a way to take advantage of those rail lines, greatly reducing the need for long single-passenger car trips. But that takes planning, and it takes accepting that government is going to need to subsidize the transit in order to reduce external damages such as environmental pollution and balance of trade issues, and there’s just too damn much money to be made by screaming “socialism” and keeping Ameicans in cars for 45 minute commutes.
Sinz: “Until you put battery chargers on every street and parking lot in America. Good luck with that.”
I’m always amazed when supposed believers in the free market system don’t accept that once a need exists, the free market will provide. If there became a large fleet of electric cars, you’d better believe we’d soon have metered plug-in stations at almost every parking lot in America. We’re good at figuring out how to make money from such needs.
Sinz: “Americans love the idea of getting into their car and traveling hundreds of miles to reach a camp site or other vacation spot.”
A couple years ago, we rented a minivan to take for a long drive up to Colorado with the family, when we wanted something bigger than the family car. It cost about $450 for the two weeks. Not a problem.
barker13 // Jul 14, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Following up my buddy’s remarks, here’s something from another buddy of mine:
=====QUOTING=====
First of all, I have to say that reading that review made me laugh out loud – “It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.”
While XXX expounded on the nature of the fuels themselves, I think he missed the writer’s larger point. The best hybrid technology is coming from Toyota, and the best of traditional internal combustion engines and drivetrains is coming from Germany generally and VW more specifically. This is less about the fuel used and more about everything else in the car.
As the writer states, auto makers have spent 100 years refining, redefining, and just plain mastering the internal combustion engines, transmissions and differentials that are the heart of automobiles. Any alternative to this technology must deliver actual driving performance that is at least comparable to what it aims to replace.
While the engine(s) of the Prius are somewhat superior to most of its peers, what makes it stand out is the transaxle. The electric motors, which deliver instant torque, basically force designers to use CVT’s (Continuously Variable Transmissions), which are horrific performers. But Toyota’s transaxle is a modified planetary gearset that behaves like a CVT. This Hybrid Synergy Drive gives the Prius performance that is comparable to a mid-level four-banger. It’s nothing to get your heart beating, but this is certainly enough for buyers of comparable traditional compact cars (yeah, I know they call it a mid-size…it’s a compact). I believe it is the patents on this drive, along with the computer system that controls it, that are giving Toyota their edge.
Consider that vehicles with traditional engines coupled to CVT’s were ultimately disasters – the Saturn Vue, for example, or more recently the Dodge Caliber. Any hybrid with this drivetrain is doomed in the design room.
I don’t see hybrids as the future, but a stop-gap or perhaps niche market. As battery technology improves, all electric vehicles may be the future. But the successes of hydrogen vehicles in fleets seems to show the fastest path away from gasoline.
==========
* By the way… my buddy who wrote the above is the brother of my other buddy who wrote the original piece I shared with you all.
BILL
sinz54 // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:40 am
balconesfault sez: “If America was as aggressive about building rail transportation lines as we are about building highways, we’d have seen a lot of that “sprawl” concentrated in a way to take advantage of those rail lines”
No.
There’s no way for rail to work, when suburbs are spread out over hundreds of square miles, with residential blocks, industrial parks, and shopping malls scattered all over the place without rhyme or reason. It’s amusing to watch the morning rush hour traffic: In the suburbs, it goes north, south, east, west, because jobs are located all over the place.
But that’s the lifestyle Americans chose for themselves.
As I pointed out, where mass transit like rail or bus have been created in the suburbs, they’re virtually empty because industrial parks and shopping malls don’t bother to locate near the rail or bus lines. They know that Americans have cars and can drive to those industrial parks and malls. In fact, zoning laws prevent industrial parks and shopping malls from being built in many residential areas.
What you are REALLY talking about, is long-term suburban planning that substitutes “smart growth” for unplanned sprawl, and decides in advance where to put shopping malls and industrial parks to maximize efficient transport to and from residential areas. But in an area like suburban Massachusetts, involving dozens of towns that go back to before the Revolutionary War, that would be fought furiously. And yet Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the nation.